The following email exchange took place between Dr. Walter Block and an individual who contacted him. Dr. Block's responses to the original email are in blue.
-----Original Message-----
From: John
Sent: Wed 8/19/2015 1:48 PM
To: wblock@loyno.edu
Subject: Your Recent Tom Woods Debate on Rand Paul
Dr. Block,
I found your recent debate with Scott Horton on the Tom Woods show very
informative:
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-468-rand-paul-yes-or-no-walter-block-and-scott-horton-debate/
At the same time, I continue to wonder how you would respond to voting
libertarian in light of third parties. I can encapsulate my thoughts in two
hypothetical 2016 situations:
1) Rand Paul wins the Republican nomination and faces Hillary Clinton as
the Democrat while Gary Johnson becomes the Libertarian party nominee.
Would you still vote for Rand Paul? On the one hand, Rand as a Republican
would be much more likely to win the general election and help move our
country in a libertarian direction than Johnson's candidacy as a
Libertarian. On the other hand, Johnson is a more pure Libertarian and
would be a more consistent libertarian if elected to the presidency.
<< Before I answer this, let me first say that in my debate with Scott Horton (who I believe did an excellent job of upholding his position) the context was the two major parties. I don't think either of us was considering the LP; certainly, I was not, in that debate. Now to answer your question.
I regard Rand and Gary as roughly equal in their adherence to liberty. But, suppose I give Gary a 70 out of 100 on the libertarian meter, and Rand only a 60. Pretty close, but the nod goes to Gary. Gary ran for the LP in 2012. Suppose Ron had won the GOP nomination then. My advice to Gary would have been: Get in touch with Ron, and ask him what he wants you to do so as to maximize his chances of beating Obama, and then do it. I would do the same thing under this assumption. Ask Gary to get in touch with Rand, and ask him the same question, and do as Rand requests.
2) Rand Paul does not win the Republican nomination, but Jeb Bush does. So
Bush faces Hillary Clinton as the Democrat while Gary Johnson becomes the
Libertarian party nominee. Supposing Bush would be more libertarian than
Clinton (an assumption which would obviously need to be proven), would you
vote for Bush or Johnson?
I would fully support Gary under these conditions. I hope this helps.
What I am trying to resolve is a tension I feel between effecting the
likely outcome of an election versus voting most consistently with my
political philosophy. I hope that this makes sense, and I appreciate any
thoughts that you have as I work through these questions.
Sincerely,
John
Our strategy is all wrong. We need to organize a Ron Paul Party and predict the crash of the welfare state. We win from the outside, not from within.
ReplyDeleteInteresting in that Walter Block is in the camp that says politics does matter short term, and Murray was in that same camp.
ReplyDeleteI find myself with Mr. Rockwell in that I don't care much for politics and I don't think it is the answer, and the sooner everyone understands that politics is not the answer, the better off we will all be.
At least Rothbard used peace as a litmus test. He seems to have believed that peace was *the* major libertarian issue and therefore supported candidates based upon this 'test'.. I could go for that.
Does it appear that Rand or Gary seems more likely to be the 'peace' candidate, a candidate that we have been so sorely lacking for multiples of decades? I'm not certain of which. Gary seems more likely than Rand based on Rand's "moves" in the recent election cycle. Which is less likely to push the button on nuclear war?
Meh, I'd give Gary the potential lead on what all I have heard. If he does not oppose the Iran deal, then consider that solid. As solid as politics can produce.
Having said all that, politics corrupts everyone it touches and I run back to the Rockwell position, as I interpret as a pox on all their houses. I could use stronger language, but I refrain.
Rand isn't going to be the nominee. Rand recently said his chances are 10 to 1. How about 10,000 to 1?
ReplyDelete"What I am trying to resolve is a tension I feel between [affecting] the likely outcome of an election versus voting most consistently with my political philosophy."
ReplyDeleteAnd it is tragic to see Block also struggling to square the same circle, above digging himself an even deeper hole. When Block says he would advise Gary Johnson, a 70/100, to capitulate to Rand Paul, a 60/100, Block shows he's willing to compromise libertarian policy in exchange for better odds at success. According to this reasoning, Block should have also advised Ron Paul, a 98/100 to capitulate to Mitt Romney because Mitt had a better chance of beating Obama. Ugh.
In any case, voting for a politician on the basis he is less bad, as Block does, is futile from a practical basis and immoral because it plays a contributing role to the statist coverup scheme intended to give the impression state violence is legitimate. Voting for a candidate is justifiable only to the extent voting for that candidate helps promote the _ideas_ of libertarianism in the minds of the population. This is a distinct matter from the question of how libertarian a candidate's particular policy positions happen to be.
That Ron Paul's policy positions were 98% libertarian is irrelevant. If voting only for policy reasons, anything less than 100% (anarchist) is immoral. That Ron Paul promoted genuine libertarian ideas is all that mattered. That made voting for him justifiable as the vote indirectly brought more attention to the ideas. A person getting hooked by Ron Paul's ideas could himself easily figure out the 2% where Ron Paul's policy positions diverged from his stated ideas and take subsequent steps to address that gap.
Rand Paul does not promote libertarian ideas in any way shape or form. He promotes no ideas at all, just political power grabbing expediency. It is pure happenstance that 60% of his policy decisions align with libertarianism. Tomorrow, they might not.
Libertarianism desperately needs marketing horsepower. Gary Johnson (an 80/100 in my book), like Ron Paul, promotes genuine libertarian ideas. The person who gets introduced to Gary Johnson's ideas by his campaign could arrive at pure libertarianism in short order, and quickly see for himself where Johnson’s policies are inconsistent with his ideas. Thus a vote for Johnson and Johnson alone among the candidates constitutes a bona-fide act promoting libertarian ideas. Only this type of voting is justifiable.
Actually, Block voted for Obama, not Romney.
DeleteBlock's entire "vote for the lesser evil" strategy is based on the ridiculous premise that a candidate's rhetoric is somehow indicative of his actual actions once in office. Obama is one of many examples of how this is nonsense. The "peace" candidate turned out to be a warmonger who favors drones and executions without trial. If we can attribute one characteristic to politicians it is that they are liars and charlatans that do not keep their promises to their voters. Yet Block assumes that Rand somehow would, even if his promises aren't all that wonderful to begin with.
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly Block's naivety continues to baffle me; it seems almost infantile to me. Much the same as making that really stupid statement about slavery in his interview with the NYT and actually expecting them to show professional integrity about it. Did he really not know that the NYT is an idealogical rag that has no interest in the objective truth? As haughty as this may sound from a layman, but Walter Block needs to grow up.
As far as the topic of the article. Gary Johnson asking Ron Paul how he can help is in such a different ball park from him asking Rand Paul that it is not even funny.
By the way, i said this before: if PEACE is the most important issue for libertarians, Block has no excuse but to vote for Bernie Sanders.
Well said.
DeleteI'm not so sure. Bernie might be good for peace abroad, but what about the implications of his economic policies at home? Socialism has made Venezuela one of the most dangerous countries in South America. Would Bernie's economic "reforms" lead the US in the same direction?
DeleteI personally would never vote for Sanders, but some big name libertarians have said that war is the most important issue of all because from war all other bad stuff flows including the police state, economic policies etc.
DeleteSo if such libertarians indeed believe war is the most important issue, and if they believe one should vote, then they have no excuse but to choose Sanders over Rand all day.
John, Your vote doesn't effect the likely outcome of the election regardless of who you vote for. It's simple mathematics. 1 out of 100 million votes doesn't effect it at all.
ReplyDelete